This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/20/chris-huhne-jury-can-reach-majority-verdict

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Vicky Pryce jury can reach majority verdict, says judge Vicky Pryce jury can reach majority verdict, says judge
(35 minutes later)
The jury in the trial of Chris Huhne's ex-wife Vicky Pryce for perverting the course of justice has been told it can reach a majority verdict. The jury in the trial of Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of the former cabinet minister Chris Huhne, was told it can reach a majority verdict as the trial judge also addressed 10 specific questions they had asked for answers to about the case.
The panel of eight women and four men at Southwark crown court, which has been deliberating for nearly 14 hours, was told by Mr Justice Sweeney on Wednesday that they can reach a verdict on which at least 10 of them agree. The panel of eight women and four men at Southwark crown court had been deliberating for amost 14 hours when Mr Justice Sweeney told them on Wednesday they can now reach a verdict on which at least 10 of them agree.
Pryce, 60, admits taking speeding points for former Cabinet minister Huhne a decade ago but pleads not guilty on the grounds of marital coercion, saying he forced her. Pryce, 60, an economist, admits taking her then husband's speeding points a decade ago but denies perverting the course of justice on the grounds of marital coercion.
Her ex-husband is facing jail after pleading guilty to the offence on the first day of their trial. The judge read out 10 questions submitted to him by the jury, and referred them to written directions he had already given them on the law in the case.
The offence dates back to 2003 when Huhne's BMW was clocked speeding on the way back from Stansted Airport. The questions, in the order the judge read them out:
Pryce told the court he forced her to take the points to avoid losing his licence. 1. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?
The alleged offence became public in May 2011, after Huhne left Pryce for PR adviser Carina Trimingham in 2010, ending their marriage. 2. Can we speculate about events at the time Vicky Pryce signed the form [saying she was the driver] or what was in her head at that time?
The court heard it was Pryce, of Clapham, south London, who revealed the story to newspapers. The judge said that the answer to both questions was " firmly no". They were entitled to draw inferences from reliable facts but not speculate, which was guesswork.
Huhne, 58, stepped down from the Cabinet to fight the charges but changed his plea on the first day of trial. 3. If there's debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case, can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict, if so inference/speculation on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so (eg circumstantial evidence, lies, the failure by Ms Pryce to mention facts to the police).
The judge replied that the drawing of inferences was a "permissible process" but speculation was not.
4. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn't bring witnesses from the time of the event such as au pair/neighbours?
5. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
The judge said: "There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence, on the contrary there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all."
He added: "The fact that there is no evidence about the Huhne/Pryce household in 2003, apart from that of Miss Pryce and what she did or did not say to her daughter about events at that time, simply means that you have only that evidence on that subject."
6. Can you define reasonable doubt?
The judge said: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable, these are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow me to help you with beyond the written directions I have already given."
7. You have defined the defence of marital coercion at pg 5 [of judge's written directions] and also explained what does not fall within the defence by way of example. Please expand upon the definition (specifically "will was overborne"), provide examples of what may fall within the defence, and does this defence require violent or physical acts?
The judge said it did not require violence or physical acts. Referring to his written directions he said marital coercion meant that a wife "was so affected to be impelled to commit the offence because she truly believed she had no real choice".
8. Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, ie she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?
The judge said the question was not for this case. And Pryce had not suggested any such reasoning was behind her decision to take the points.
9. The jury is considering the facts provided but have continued to ask the questions raised by the police. Given the case has come to court without answers to the police's questions, please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury shall consider to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict? This was about the fact Pryce had not given answers during police interviews.
The judge told the jury that they decided the case on the evidence. That meant it was for them "to review all the evidence to decide which of it you consider to be important , truthful and reliable and then decide what conclusions, common sense conclusions, you can safely draw by way of inference, from that evidence".
He added: "It's not part of my function – because I am the judge of the law, not, as you are, the judges of the facts – to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important and which are not."
10. In the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there is not enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the Notice of Intended Prosecution (between 3-7 May 2003) to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be – not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict?
They could only convict if at least 10 of them were sure Pryce was guilty, said the judge.
Sending them back out to continue their deliberations he said: "If for any reason one or more of you feel less than confident that you understand and are able to apply my directions of law, then it would be wholly wrong for any juror in that position to reach a verdict one way or the other."
Reminding them that any verdict had to be one on which at least 10 agreed, he said: "If after further consideration you find yourselves in a position that you are simply not able to agree, no matter how much longer you continue to debate and that's going to remain the position then you must, of course , have the courage to say so by your foreman sending me a note to that effect."
Huhne pleaded guilty to the offence on the first day of his trial, and is awaiting sentence.
The alleged offence dates back to 2003 when Huhne's BMW was clocked speeding on the way back home to Clapham from Stansted airport. The allegations became public in May 2011 after Huhne left Pryce for PR adviser Carina Trimingham, and Pryce told a newspaper about the speeding points.
but changed his plea on the first day of trial.